Search Results

1. [2020] NZIACDT 22 - NJUM v VOLE (2 June 2020) [pdf, 137 KB]

   ...breach of cl 1 of the Code (being professional) and of cl 31(a) (not providing false documentation to a visa officer). [18] Furthermore, it was found that Mr Vole had breached a number of other Code obligations: (1) He lacked diligence and due care in filing applications without the necessary documents, in breach of cl 1; (2) He failed to provide to the complainant written confirmation of material discussions with her, in breach of cl 26(c); and (3) He failed to provide to the...

2. LCRO 229/2017 and 021/2018 VL v YN (8 May 2019) [pdf, 257 KB]

   ...lack of action and their incompetence caused us to lose the property we had wanted to buy and further because it was conditional on the sale of our own property which we sold we are now homeless. Devon VL did not act in accordance to her duties of care for us as clients. Devon VL did not act competently, in a timely manner or in accordance with instructions received. Devon VL did not act to protect or promote our interests. Devon VL did not treat us fairly. Mr CA’s submissions...

3. [2021] NZIACDT 26 - RH v Ji - Sanctions (23 December 2021) [pdf, 277 KB]

   ...immigration advice, and to enhance the reputation of New Zealand as a migration destination, by providing for the regulation of persons who give immigration advice. [41] The focus of professional disciplinary proceedings is not punishment, but the protection of the public:4 …It is well established that professional disciplinary proceedings are civil and not criminal in nature. That is because the purpose of statutory disciplinary proceedings for various occupations is not to punish...

4. Taranaki Standards Committee v Hamilton [2013] NZLCDT 22 [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...or dishonourable; and/or, (b) At times when he was providing regulated services, he wilfully or recklessly contravened provisions of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (Act) and/or the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (Rules), namely: (i) Section 110 of the Act; and/or, 3 (ii) Rule 11.1 (misleading and deceptive conduct); and/or, (iii) Rule 5.4 (conflicting interests); and/or, (iv) Rule 6.1 (conflicting duties); and/or, (c) He...

5. Kettering v Biggleswade LCRO 212 / 2009 (19 March 2010) [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...changed. DECISION [1] The Applicant is a barrister whose professional retainer involving two clients led the Standards Committee to conclude that the Applicant had acted in a conflict of interest in breach of Rule 6.1 of the Conduct and Client Care Rules and that there had been conduct unbecoming on the part of the Applicant. [2] The background is that the Applicant acted for C after she was charged with assault following a complaint to the police by her partner D. In defe...

6. Family and Sexual Violence work programme April [pdf, 327 KB]

   ...Legislation Bill. While the timing for the passage of the Bill and its entry into force are subject to Parliamentary decisions, work is underway to enable new court processes and ways of working in anticipation of new law. Simplifying and aligning Protection Order and Care of Children applications In support of the changes in the Bill, the Ministry is working to simplify and align protection order application forms and Care of Children Act (COCA) forms. The need to simplify th...

7. Ron Lunken Family Trust v Haywood Construction Limited [2011] NZWHT Auckland 66 [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...and partly verbal and that Haywood was responsible for both design and construction. It is claimed that Haywood breached clause 2 of the contract by failing to carry out the construction to the required standards and by breaching its duty of care as the builder. [6] The Trustees and the Council claim against Mr de Geest in tort as the project manager on the ground that Mr de Geest personally assumed the role of project manager and was responsible for supervising and co-o...

8. [2021] NZIACDT 13 - TI v Malcolm (8 June 2021) [pdf, 220 KB]

   ...There was no response from Mr Malcolm. Complaint referred to Tribunal [23] The Registrar referred the complaint to the Tribunal on 20 April 2021. It alleges the following against Mr Malcolm: (1) negligence, or alternatively a lack of due care in breach of cl 1 of the Code, by – (a) failing to lodge the application in time; (b) failing to lodge the application online; (c) failing to inform the complainant of Immigration New Zealand’s letter of 23 October 2020; (d) fai...

9. KIT v Zhu [2019] NZIACDT 34 (20 May 2019) [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...[25] However, it was accepted by Mr Zhu that he neglected to have a signed contract with the complainant. Nor did he provide the Code of Conduct 2014 (the Code) to the complainant. He also admitted not checking the interim visa issue with due care. He further acknowledged that his file notes were not complete, which was a vital mistake to make. [26] Mr Zhu set out in his letter to the Authority his proposed remedial action. This included asking all 16 staff, apart from the thr...

10. LCRO 14/2020 CL v BB (18 December 2020) [pdf, 150 KB]

    ...services and terminated instructions on 16 November 2018. Mr BB rendered his account in the sum of $3,475 plus GST and disbursements. Ms CL’s complaints [8] Ms CLs letter of complaint summarised the issues that concerned her: “Lack of duty of care – excessive account – $4,171.25, being charged $70 emails to book an appointment and then receive “ok” back.”1 She has analysed the firm’s time records and refers to charges of $70 for minor administrative matters. She...